Related

You Might also like

—Who will, if anyone, replace Putin after 2008? This is the question that has been on almost everyone’s lips for weeks, if not months. Opinions have vacillate between speculations about Putin changing the Russian Constitution so he could run again, or a candidate hand will be picked by Putin to run for President. That person would be an instant favorite. Both scenarios are possible. But it seems that the latter is the most likely. Putin himself was hand picked by Yeltsin. It appears that he is going to continue the tradition.

The question then becomes who? And further what kind of person will it be? The Moscow Times has an article suggesting that whoever Putin picks, it will probably be a compromise between him and the siloviki and an unnamed progressive St. Petersburg group. The siloviki are a Kremlin call of St. Petersburg intelligence officials who are the base of Putin’s power. In terms of what type of figure that will be, a report by Renaissance Capital (the report is only available to RC clients) suggests the following:

“If the siloviki are able to nominate a candidate, then the next president is likely to push to extend state control outside of the strategic sectors of the economy and into the most dynamic sectors of the Russian economy, undermining economic recovery.”

Perhaps so, but I am not convinced that increased state control will undermine economic recovery. If anything’s for sure, the lack of state control over Russia’s energy and natural resources has only lead to plunder, theft, and corruption. This is not to say that this wouldn’t happen under state control, but at least the state can direct the country’s resources in a direction that benefits the overall the interests of the country. The history of state deregulation, especially in conjunction with structural adjustment, has only led to further problems. Just look at Argentina.

The Russian government’s primary concern according to the Moscow Times is to facilitate a smooth and peaceful transfer of power. The 2008 election should not be viewed without Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan in mind. The so-called “colored revolutions” have cast a dark cloud over Russian domestic politics and there is fear that “revolution” in Russia might be next.

As for Putin himself, some are claiming that he will stay in politics perhaps as the head of United Russia or run one of Russia’s energy outfits. Only time will tell.

Komsomolskaia Pravda also ponders life after Putin but from a different perspective. The concern for the Norka Analytical Group is not who, but what will happen after Putin. Their focus is also on the question of state de/regulation. The article states:

“In the course of their economic transformations, Russia and China have dispelled the myth that private property is superior to state property. As practice shows, industrial efficiency doesn’t depend on the form of property ownership – it depends on the efficiency of the management system, which is not determined by the form of property ownership. Without going into a detailed analysis of the efficiency of China’s state economy and the inefficiency of Russia’s private sector, a number of conclusions may be drawn, the most important of which is this: the private sector in Russia is incapable of ensuring national economic development. The Russian-style capitalist will never build new enterprises that take five to seven years to provide a return on investment. He might invest in a football club, a casino, or a hotel, but he’ll never invest in innovation projects that are a method of industrial development.

The only source of funding for this development, inherited by modern Russia from the USSR, is undoubtedly the natural resources sector – which Yeltsin’s reformers hastened to transfer into private ownership. At present, even though most of the profits from energy resources are going to a group of individuals, the state is receiving substantial sums in the form of taxes and tariffs. But the economic bloc of the federal government, as represented by the so-called liberal ministers, is denying the need to develop the state sector of the real economy and doesn’t know how to use this money in private enterprise.” [Translation: Tatiana Khramtsova]

Putin’s achievement, according the Kom Prav, is that he’s put a stop to the liquidation of Russia’s state industries that began with Gorbachev and accelerated under Yeltsin.

—The Economist sets its sights on the ubiquitous problem of corruption in Russia. According to a report by Indem, “since 2001, in the number and size of bribes given by young men and their families to avoid conscription and, relatedly, in those paid to get into universities. (Fixing a court case, Indem found, has got a bit cheaper.)” Russia’s corruption index, as calculated by Transparency International, ranks Russia next to Niger, Sierra Leone and Albania.

As the Economist is quick to point out: Corruption in Russia is not simply about paying bribes to lower officials and police, it kills. The corruption of local officials has aided the blowing up to two planes and the Beslan and Nalchik attacks. Corruption makes Russia’s fight against terrorism that much more difficult.

—Mosnews is reporting that Kyrgystan’s Prime Minister, Felix Kulov is offering to resign after the in response to protests and a possible parliamentary inquiry into his involvement in the killing of deputy Tynychbek Akmatbayev. Akmatbayev was killed in a convict’s riot on Thursday in a Kyrgyz penal colony. According to witnesses,

“The clash in the prison colony No.31 in the village of Moldovanovka, it was Akmatbayev and one of his aides who first opened fire. One of the convicts, Aziz Batukayev, who is considered to be the ring leader among the convicts, ordered the killing of the MP. It was reported that he had hostile relations with the MP’s brother, Ryspek Akmatbayev, a well-known criminal. According to sources from the penitentiary, “the riots started after convicts demanded that their living conditions be improved”.

Protesters in Bishkek are claiming that Kulov is connected to the murder.

—Another outbreak of bird flu is being reported in Chelyabinsk region, in Russia’s South Urals. So far 33 birds from two different farms have died. According to an unnamed Russian agricultural ministry official,

“The risk of the lethal strain of avian flu rearing its head in Moscow or its surrounding area was “minimal”, despite an outbreak in Tula, 300 kilometres (188 miles) south of the capital. Veterinary services said Friday they suspected that the bird flu virus had now spread to 24 areas, of which 20 were in the Novosibirsk region of Siberia, three in the Kurgan region of Siberia and one in the southern region of Stavropol, though tests were still ongoing.”

The Moscow Oblast administration has decided to destroy all wild birds near poultry procession facilities to prevent the spread of bird flu into the area. Russia Profile claims that this aggressive stance in is reaction to the EU upholding its ban on Russian poultry exports.

For more information on bird flu as a global threat, I suggest listening to this recent interview with Mike Davis on Democracy Now!

—Kommersant is reporting that Russia’s Deputy General Procurator Nikolai Shepel’ is claiming that preliminary investigations show the Nalchik attacks were carried out by an underground international terrorist organization, and that there are strong connections between the Nalchik attacks and similar acts in Ingushetia and Beslan. He told Kommersant, “a serious organization resists us with an ideology that is a dangerous to the state.” He also claims that while the majority of militants in Nalchik were Kabardins, “persons of Chechen and Ingush nationality” were also present. Found among several of the “bandits” were written letters testifying that they were dying for “glory of God and belief.” Thus continues the effort by the Russian government to connect their regional conflict to the global war on terrorism.

For a more comprehensive discussion on Nalchik and its significance, I recommend Russia Profile’s very interesting weekly roundtable.

As for the events and possible cause of the mine blast, Kommersant reports,

According to the deputy head of the division, the tragedy was precipitated by the collapse of the roof over the coal face in the 11th tunnel: “Over the spot of the collapse there was obviously an underground cavity, a so-called pocket, that accumulated methane. After the roof collapsed, the methane instantaneously spread throughout the mine and exploded.”

When asked whether there is any hope that any of the miners who were at the coal face will be found alive, Alexander Gennadyevich replied, “a methane explosion in a mine is like a massive cannon shot. Imagine that there were people in the cannon’s barrel at the time. How would you rate their chances for survival?”

The explosion took place at a depth of 270 meters, yet the resulting shockwave was powerful enough to blast coal dust several meters into the air out of all of the mine’s entrances.

The same version of events was repeated that evening by Governor Tuleev, who confirmed that a methane explosion in the mine had destroyed the underground infrastructure and that the resulting debris will seriously hinder rescue efforts. “Our task is to find as many people as possible and to prevent a fire,” he added. Fortunately, no fires broke out, but in order to prevent the possibility of a spark igniting any remaining gas, the mine’s ventilation system had to be turned off. According to the miners at the scene, the situation is a double-edged sword: their fellow miners trapped underground will not burn to death, but they may suffocate.

Anyone at the coal face at the time of the blast was likely killed instantly, however, and even the few who were near the exits from the mine when the explosion took place suffered severe trauma.

Related

The other night I received two emails simultaneously from friends alerting me that Michael Specter was to be a guest on the Colbert Report.Intrigued, I quickly set my DVR to record the show.

I’ve only watched the Colbert Report once before despite its immense popularity among friends.I have to say that I pretty much couldn’t get through the commercial laden half hour.Steven Colbert is part of the Daily Show revolution of fake news shows that lampoon the real news.Colbert’s shtick is to satirize right wing talk shows and radio as a means of media critique.I think blurring the line between “fake” and “real” news to expose the utter poverty of the latter is interesting. However, while this may seem novel to some, it has clearly reached a tipping point in effectiveness.I find Colbert’s execution a bit trite, predictable, too reliant on pop culture references, and often simply not funny.The Colbert Report is merely a shadow of Jon Stewart’s the Daily Show.

But since the episode was Russia related, I decided to tune in.Specter looked like a deer in the headlights.He seemed to kinda get Colbert’s act, but kinda not.Specter also came across far less nuanced on the show than in his New Yorkerarticle.It appeared that he was ready to pull the noose around Putin for the deaths of every journalist and critic.It was only toward the end that he admitted that he didn’t actually outright accuse Putin of anything in his article except creating an atmosphere for these things to happen.Fair enough, but I can’t help to notice a certain slippage between these two views.It is clear that Specter wants to charge Putin with these crimes outright but he just doesn’t have any real evidence to do so.

For Colbert’s part, he tried in vain to make implicit connections between Putin’s alleged tactics and the Bush Administration.I guess he had to give his American-centric audience something familiar to chew on.But such comparisons are weak in my view and elide some very key differences between both Administrations’ authoritarian impulses. In the end, the show is just not for me.